LegendadryPerc

Can something done to somebody against their will, help with their salvation?

I'll let those who know law better answer exactly what CPS still can and can't do... My opinion of this whole case is that you can't fight a belief with physical force. You can fight action with action, but belief itself must be fought with belief. One of the many reasons I have been horrified by CPS's actions in this case, is that if there was any of the aleged thing going on, they have treated those they were "saving" in such a way as to almost garentee nobody would come forward and say, "I wanted out." They have enforced any taught belief that the outside world was cruel and controlling, that might have been taught. I have heard, and believe the saying contains much truth, that there is nothing to make you want to do something, like forbidding it! I think this must doubly apply to a religious belief one feels is unjustly oppressed. I have the habit of always trying to see a situation from the other guys perspective. I can all too well understand where the FLDS are coming from. In order to understand the difficulty some have with sympathizing with them, I must substitute "child bride" and "abandoned teenagers" with something I find as disturbing as many people seem to find these things. (don't want to get into an arguement about whether specific aspects of their beliefs are as evil as everybody says, I think there was already a thread on that, and don't have anything to add to it - or maybe I'm just calmed down now that it looks like justice has been done.) So if I substitute an idea I find abhorent, like abortion, in, then I have to really look at how prejudice I am against freedom of beliefs. If abortion was ilegal, and some obscure religion lived off by itself, so it's children didn't know about abstinance, chastity, contraception, and they taught their kids that if they got preg. before a certain age, abortion was the right thing to do. Even if they glorified being having "relationships" when kids weren't wanted. Would it be effective to declare that they could not believe this was ok, and could not teach it, or have literature or movies, etc. that said it was good? What if they kicked young girls who refused to have abortion out? What if there were rumours that they even forced abortions on girls? When girls denied it and said they wanted abortions, how could we expect them to believe otherwise, raised like that? Where would we draw the line? Would we ban abortion glorifying material from the whole country, or just from those involved in this religion? Should we do it? Would it be effective? Would it be right? Would it be safe to do so in a democracy, where the abortion laws could change again? I guess I truely have great sympathy for strong religious beliefs. I have discovered just how strong my religious beliefs are. I do not like telling people how strong they are, because it scares people. Our society believes it's OK to have beliefs, as long as they don't overshadow societies definition of "common sense". Nephi killing Laban even though he didn't want to, is an example I've heard used numerous times to fault religion. If someone is willing to go against the law, to even shed the blood of a man, because they believe God told them to, then that is taking religion "too far". That is when religion is no longer safe. Abraham and Isaac, is another. Religion is OK, as long as it doesn't go too far. As defined by society, my religious beliefs go too far. If God told me to, I would do those things. I agree that it is morally wrong to kick people out of a society and teach their families to reject them if they do not give their all to a religious belief. I do not know what the answer is. You cannot force someone to accept another person in their hearts. And who would want to have their families forced to keep them, when their families did not want to. Forcing everybody to be kicked out at an earlier age, seems like a worse solution. Like "saving" somebody from blackmail, by making good the threat now, so they won't have to worry about it later.

So if the children were returned imeadiately, instead of this 10 day thing, then CPS wouldn't have been given a chance to present evidence of abuse, that they didn't already present. (if there is any) Is that right? - with such a controversial case as this, I think the governors chance of being reelected was thrown out the window a long time ago.

lol The sheets are one of the many things that irks me about this case. What in the wold does dna on temple bed sheets have to do with proving a case? Maybe it's just the big deal they made about the bed ileagal acts were supposed to have happened on, being in the temple. If they thought it happened in a bedroom, would they take those sheets for dna too? It all seems so rediculous/obviously sensationalizing it. (maybe you have better words for it - but it doesn't seem like a sane act of getting evidence) Thanks so much for your insight. So, to speculate, does what the paper stating why they were originally removed http://web.gosanangelo.com/pdf/affidavit.pdf limit what evidence CPS can come up with for individual cases? Like, since, as I understand it, the paper states that the kids were removed because of the culture and belief system, could CPS come up with a new reason now, or do they pretty much have to stick to their flawed reasoning - which thankfully hasn't stood up in court. (thankfully because I think it's pretty scary to live in a democracy if "the people" can decide if your beliefs are good enough to be allowed to have or not) So, you mentioned that your idea would be to give the children back immeadiately, with orders preventing them from leaving texas, etc. How would the courts have gone about doing this? Are there reasons they decide one way in some cases and another in others? Thanks so much!

Matthew chapter 13: 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Many people have made the same good point on this thread. What is being overlooked is the individual love and concern of God for each of His children. If they did join a different church for a time, or even for their whole lives, it would not be some accident because they were decieved. God knows the intents of our hearts. He knows what we need at any given moment. He wants to give us good gifts. Our experiences moment to moment are orchestrated for our utmost benifit for where we are in our journey toward perfection. If this happened, (and I'm sure it's happened to many - pretty sure I met people on my mission whom this had happened to) then it is part of their journey or free agency and learning and the perfect environment a loving Heavenly Father has provided them for what they need to learn then. Perhaps there is something they need to learn by belonging to that church. If it wasn't right for them to belong to it, if it was detrimental to their pesonal journey of free agency, to ultimate happiness, then God simply would cause something to happen to prevent them from being decieved. He is perfect. I think this is something LDS members need to talk about. I know it blew me away and really shook the foundation of my faith, how strong the spirit was the first time I attended a religious ceromony not my own. Now, ironically, I look back, and wonder how it could have posibly surprised me, and how I could posibly have been that old before I realized God talked to all His children, not just the ones of my religion. So there is no doubt in my mind that truth, where ever it is found, will be known through the spirit. I have not read your profile. But from what you have said here, the things you've mentioned seem rather superficial. I long for the social closeness there is in some wards and isn't in others, but that doesn't change the spiritual truths I feal.

Is oposition to the death penalty realy a minority, or is it just assumed to be on a mormon board? Does the Book of Mormon really "require" the death penalty, or does it simply state that the law and culture at that time required it? I know Utah seems to think it morally required, but once again, is this LDS doctrine or mormon culture? What are the actual scriptural (past and modern) quotes on the death penalty, including conference talks ect. Is "justice" ever our responsibility?

Thanks (I'm glad you know lawyer talk, as I don't, and it's so nice to have someone that can explain it to me. - I can figure out the obvious stuff, but I don't have the right vocabulary...) So basically it is back to the 14 day hearing theory, except for it is now 10 days. Is that right? So the "plan" hearings that have been going on this week. What happens to them? Does it differ if a child has already had theirs or not? Thanks so much! Are you a lawyer?

Oh, I just wanted to say that, although I've never seen a baby story or any of those shows, I know a person who was in a "reality show". They dramatize them so bad, editing etc. Birth, even if you are the very rare person where "something goes wrong", is not that traumatic. Trama/drama sells on TV, so they purposely show scary "tramatic" things. That is another good reason to get a doula. I have heard things from people who have watched them and know birth (like it seems we have a wonderful member here who does - yay!) that say much of the trauma shown on there is completely preventable, or caused by crazy things like telling the mom not to get out of bed or roll over, even if how she is laying is making the contraction hurt worse. Being scared of birth because of "a baby story" is like being scared of driving after watching some scary chase scene movie. - There is no need for such stress, etc. about and during birth.

I really apreciate your insight on this. You seem better able to decifer the legal wording than I am. What does this mean, though? What is abeyance, and what does that mean as far as the individual hearings go, and what does it mean as far as reuniting parents with children? Thanks. I like your personal opinion much better than whatever this "abeyance" seems to mean.

Wonderful wonderful advice here. I don't know how to quote everybody, but wanted to emphasise that you shouldn't feel pressure from others to have a baby. A doula is a wonderful idea! Actually most births that doulas attend are in hospitals. I think the price of a doula depends on where you live. I have only seen areas where they are $200 and places where they are up to $400, but it must depend on where you live. Also, some insurances cover doulas, as there is a less chance of needing a C-sec. or expensive proceedures when you have a doula, so they save money by covering doulas. So make sure to check your insurance. I have been scared of a birth I knew the Lord was telling me to have. I researched for at least 3 months, argueing with myself, but realized that the research meant nothing. If I knew in my heart that it was right for me to do this, then nothing else mattered. I had to do it in order to be me, in order to live with myself. I cannot go against what I know is true deep down inside. So the best advice is pray about it, and when the time comes, the Lord will give you everything you lack. It is amazing - it is like walking on water. You may know it is impossible. But trust the Lord, and just like walking on water - you CAN do it through your faith! Just in case you didn't know - given your circumstances, you are a full tithe payer. We had our first two kids while in college. We have several more now that we don't know how we could ever afford them without the Lord's absolute miricles in our lives every day. The truth of the matter is, that this is only extremely obvious in our current situation, but it is true for everybody, no matter what their situation. You cannot make it through a day or even a second, without the miricle of the Lord's help. You are already walking on water. So having a baby will be no different. Financially - there is very, very, little you need to have for a baby. We use cloth diapers, co-sleep, breastfeed. We started some of these because we simply didn't have room for a bunch of expensive baby gear in our small college apartment - definantly no space for a crib. I honestly have been living on practically nothing for so long, that I don't know what the "baby expenses" currently are. I have no idea what the world in general says you "need" for a baby. So if you think of something, let me know, and I can tell you how we do without it, or even send you it if it's something that we don't do without. (We've had so many kids, that if it's something we don't easily do without, we probably have one laying around that I could send you.) As far as the dangers of birthing, for some people it might help to research specific facts. I don't know if you are one of these people, but if you find this helpfull, as I said, I have done lots of research into birth (from a personal interest - I'm not a profesional) and if you want help or have questions about any aspect of birth, I'd love to either answer the questions if I can, find the answers for you, or at least point you in the right direction. This birthing class/forum thing (whatever it is) sound fun. I hope you don't mind "experienced" moms coming too.

The example I gave above, of practicing polygamy being ileagal, but believing and teaching the priciple of polygamy being declared by the supreme court, protected by law, was actually a case where Brigham Young had his own lawyers prosecute polygamy to test and see what would happen. That was the answer, and I believe that was when the church said stop practicing polygamy. As far as I understand, from quotes from President Monson about behind the iron curtain, etc. The church says to follow the law. We don't baptize people in countries where it is ileagal, but first try to change the law. Thus wonderfull things happen, like the fall of the iron curtain. That is why we need to take legal steps to protect the law that BELIEVING and teaching a priciple cannot and must not be against the law in the promised land. God is giving the USA the privelidge of being established here because they are are a free country. If we do not defend (through legal and peaceful means) the most basic of all freedoms, the freedom to believe (not even to act, just to believe), the USA has no right to be established here.

I'm a Christian, communist, anarchist. Christian is my religion, communism is my economic belief, and anarchist is my govt. beleif. I did the "libertarian thing" for a while, and still vote that more often than not simply because in the current state of our govt. it will take a good long time for it to get even close to having some of the problems I see with libertarianism (like no public access to education). I guess if you seperate economic from political as I have done, libertarianism is good. The US has a horrible neonatal death rate for being such a rich industrialized country with state of the art medicine available. I have always blamed this on the oposite of libertarianism. I have researched birth statistics and come to the conclusion that it is because the US is currently so far from libertarianism, that the govt. tells people how they can and can't give birth. Many of these birth practices are actually dangerous. Some save in some instances and kill in others (C-sec.) Currently, half of all C-sec. are responsible for more deaths than they prevent. If a doctor "determines" a woman "needs" a C-sec., he can call a judge and have an emergency court order and literally force her to have a C-sec. Curiously, about half the women that have been in this situation, have escaped and given birth just fine in at home or in another hosp. One hid in the bathroom at the hosp. and gave birth by herself while her relatives literally warded off those who would physically have forced her to give birth their way. All these babies were just fine. Once a woman refused a C-sec. and the doctor didn't get an emergency court order, and the baby died. The woman was charged with murder. Anyway, sorry to go off topic so much, but forced unproved medical practices, or even practices that have been proven hurtfull, are imo the cause for the high neonatal death rate. Universal health care economically only, would be nice, but not if it increased the monarchy western medicine currently holds over us.

I think there is much confusion as to what is meant by "disavow your beliefs". This Free the Children - Action has several links to what was actually said in court, court documents, etc. The reason given by the court for the children to remain in CPS custody was that being exposed to the parents beliefs was, in and of itself, abuse. That is the only reason they could justify taking all the children, not just the young girls. They blatantly said that it wasn't whether the parents followed the beliefs or not, but whether they believed them. The supreme court, as I understand it, ruled a long time ago, that a belief does not excuse you from following the law. If you are polygamous and there is a law against polygamy, then having a belief that polygamy is good, whether that belief is religious or not, does not excuse you. The Supreme court, however, said that the law has no control over whether you believe it or not. This is what is clearly being violated by Texas CPS. They are calling the belief itself, not the actions, abuse. This isn't a case of promising not to have teenage girls get married, and having CPS watch your family closely to make sure it doesn't happen. This is a case of CPS supported by Texas govt., saying you cannot have your children back unless you don't beleive this. You cannot teach it as priciple, etc. Although we have no idea what the controversial marriage age will be in 10 years when some of these kids become teenagers. "The CPS witness, asked why it's not safe to return the children to their mothers, replies that adults who live on the ranch believe they aren't doing anything wrong to their children, that the practice of children having children is part of their culture and belief system." LIVE FROM THE COURTHOUSE: Updates on FLDS custody hearing : Local : gosanangelo.com In one hearing, CPS officials acknowledged taking copies of the Book of Mormon from FLDS children. "And CPS is now going through those Books of Mormon, looking for marginal notes and censoring anything that they, quote, ‘disapprove of or find inappropriate.' And I think that that is wrong," Parker said. CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins says it may only be one case where authorities removed pictures and teachings of Warren Jeffs from some scriptures, then gave the books back. He says, "We obviously don't have any quarrel with the Book of Mormon, or the Bible, or the Koran." He says the problem is when children are reading the words of a convicted sex offender like Warren Jeffs. ksl.com - Motion to have judge removed from case dismissed Now, I understand controversy over practicing beliefs. I believe in laws that would restrict the practice of the belief that abortion is OK. But there is no question in my mind as to laws that restrict believing something, having that belief written down, however horrible the rest of us think it is, and communicating to our own children what we believe. (abusive methods of teaching should be stopped, but the FLDS have not been officially acused of any) This is the ultimate of openly admitting an attack on freedom of religion. (but of course it's ok because that religion is so bad.) I cannot imagine anything more horrible than choosing between my beliefs (not just acting on them, but even believing them) and my children. I would choose my beliefs.